united states. the question is the extent of the ruling in 1981, called michigan vs. summers, that says if law enforcement agents find and architect any premises, they can detain the occupants while execute the search warrant. the police that follow that person some distance and stop that person away from the premises. in this case what happened is you had a defendant -- an informant come forward and say there was drug dealing at a certain location, police got a search warrant, they surveiled house, sought a man fitting the description of the person the informant had said was a drug dealer operating out of application. that man left with another man, got in a car, and drove away. the police fought them and stop them. he made state missed connecting insult to the premises. the police brought him back, and the search had been conducted, and officers had found guns and drugs in the location, and they arrested him. the evidence seized in the house -- he claimed he had been stopped billy crist had been stopped illegally. the argument in short is the following? they look at